Hmm. If so, it would be very revealing to the wing of the Republican Party that puts principle over pragmatism, they might start feeling sold out.
Seriously, there are a good number of "normal people" Republicans that if you asked what the Republican Party stands for, their definition would not be inclusive to Rudy Giuliani, just as the definition of most is no longer inclusive to libertarians.
Of course the GOP brass will get on the horn and say "yes, he is pro-choice, but do you want Hillary for President?" It will be interesting to see what these Republican voters that believe in those principles do: stay home, vote for a 3rd party Constitution-type candidate, or throw away their principles and vote for Rudy.
All those independent organizations like the Christian Coalition, National Right-to-Life, etc. have a hard choice to make. If you're a pro-life organization and you support a pro-choice candidate, why should a donator give money to you ever again? Isn't the point of them receiving money from contributors is to get people with religious principles in office? This is an issue where, if Rudy does get nominated, the Republicans and Democrats are the same party.
2008 is going to be a very interesting election.
As for Hillary and the South, she has the potential at least for a few upset wins*. All of us white southerners get lumped together as conservatives. However, a good number are populists, an ideology that with the decline of the Southern Democrats people pay less attention to, but is still present. If Hillary comes out with a populist message that connects (not something fake like Edwards) and gets the blacks to turnout in large numbers, she has a chance to take a state like Louisiana.
* Note: the South as I'm describing it does not include Florida.
